Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: 2Corrie on December 08, 2016, 12:46:40 AM
-
It has been suggested that the deity of Christ can not be supported with Old Testament scripture.
In Zechariah 12 God is talking:
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn."
The apostle John makes direct reference to this scripture in his account of the crucifixion, clearly indicating that the Lord Jesus is the one who was pierced: "For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken." 37And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced."
So God is the one whom was pierced and Jesus was the one whom was pierced.
I find the reference to mourning for the only son in realisation interesting in the light of this.
-
YER WOT ?!?!!?!?
'In Zechariah 12 God is talking......'
How do YOU know God is saying or said this? Just when was 'John' written anyway & by whom?
'Everyone else' is wrong????
Nick
-
It has been suggested that the deity of Christ can not be supported with Old Testament scripture.
In Zechariah 12 God is talking:
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn."
The apostle John makes direct reference to this scripture in his account of the crucifixion, clearly indicating that the Lord Jesus is the one who was pierced: "For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken." 37And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced."
So God is the one whom was pierced and Jesus was the one whom was pierced.
I find the reference to mourning for the only son in realisation interesting in the light of this.
Yep.
It's hard to see that scripture meaning anything else!
-
But does that mean it's correct?
-
S' a matter of faith. However, given that this is the text handed down to us, I see no other reasonable interpretation.
-
Oh I see so it MUST be right then, eh ?!?!!?? ;) ::)
-
Right for Christians, ippy, or for some Christians. I accept it too.
However it could be differently interpreted and I am honestly not going through the verses with a fine tooth comb looking for alternatives with a magnifying glass, this just came to me while I was reading them:
if one of our children is hurt, we are hurt, we feel their pain so if someone hurts mine they are hurting me.
Hurting God's son hurt God.
That is quite clear to me.
Later: Thought of the fact that Jesus's mother was told a sword would pierce her heart. Same thing really.
-
The apostle John makes direct reference to this scripture in his account of the crucifixion,
What evidence do you have that the Apostle John ever wrote anything?
clearly indicating that the Lord Jesus is the one who was pierced: "For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken." 37And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced."
Ii's called a retcon: retrospective continuity. The author of the gospel merely put the reference in to strengthen the claim.
-
What evidence do you have that the Apostle John ever wrote anything?
Ii's called a retcon: retrospective continuity. The author of the gospel merely put the reference in to strengthen the closing
The question is is it more likely to be John?
The next question is is it genuine, is the writer trying to be truthful? If you are ignoring the psychology of the author I would say you aren't properly connecting with the history or history per se.
Thanks for the word retcon which I am now about to use in another argument......
-
The question is is it more likely to be John?
No, the question is "what evidence do you have that the Apostle John ever wrote anything?"
-
No, the question is "what evidence do you have that the Apostle John ever wrote anything?"
The work itself of course.
There is the argument that the disciples of John may have wrote it as indeed the disciples of famous paintings painted their masters paintings.Does that mean those painting have less artistic integrity? Of course not.
-
The work itself of course.
In what way does it provide evidence that it was written by the Apostle John?
There is the argument that the disciples of John may have wrote it as indeed the disciples of famous paintings painted their masters paintings.
That's an interesting idea.
Does that mean those painting have less artistic integrity? Of course not.
Yes it does.
Anyway, even if John did write the gospel (almost certainly not btw), the argument remains. Even John could have put the retcon in .
-
In what way does it provide evidence that it was written by the Apostle John?
That's an interesting idea.
Yes it does.
Anyway, even if John did write the gospel (almost certainly not btw), the argument remains. Even John could have put the retcon in .
Whoever did the paintings of the masters they are still artistic masterpieces.
Secondly if they did in those early christian days style something in the name of someone do we actually know what and why all that was about or do we assume the worse as you have?
After all what about Marks and Spencer who are still going but have actually not been in a position to personally sell any underwear due to being dead for several years.
-
Whoever did the paintings of the masters they are still artistic masterpieces.
Secondly if they did in those early christian days style something in the name of someone do we actually know what and why all that was about or do we assume the worse as you have?
After all what about Marks and Spencer who are still going but have actually not been in a position to personally sell any underwear due to being dead for several years.
I am not quite sure where M&S come into the discussion?
As for Jesus and what was written about him, if something isn't credible as is much that is attributed to him, then it more than likely didn't happen. Just because people claim to have witnessed things doesn't give them credibility unless there is supporting evidence. The Angel of Mons story is a much more modern case in point. Even though it was created by an author and didn't actually happen, some people claim to have seen the angel"
-
I am not quite sure where M&S come into the discussion?
As for Jesus and what was written about him, if something isn't credible as is much that is attributed to him, then it more than likely didn't happen. Just because people claim to have witnessed things doesn't give them credibility unless there is supporting evidence. The Angel of Mons story is a much more modern case in point. Even though it was created by an author and didn't actually happen, some people claim to have seen the angel"
Who decides the grounds of credibility?
The angel of mons is a pretty one dimensional phenomenon which asks no personal questions or personal commitment other than intellectual assent or otherwise.
M and S comes in because although in one sense it is dishonest to talk of Marks and Spencer serving shoppers on account of them messrs Marks and Spencer being deceased, nobody bats an eyelid when stuff is done in their name and no integrity is compromised by it.
Just like the Gospel of John standing on it's own merits whatever it's called...or a rose being as sweet by any other name.
-
Who decides the grounds of credibility?
The angel of mons is a pretty one dimensional phenomenon which asks no personal questions or personal commitment other than intellectual assent or otherwise.
M and S comes in because although in one sense it is dishonest to talk of Marks and Spencer serving shoppers on account of them messrs Marks and Spencer being deceased, nobody bats an eyelid when stuff is done in their name and no integrity is compromised by it.
Just like the Gospel of John standing on it's own merits whatever it's called...or a rose being as sweet by any other name.
People who are really dead don't come to life three days later, that isn't credible for a start!
-
People who are really dead don't come to life three days later, that isn't credible for a start!
What, never? What is the rule which says one person in several billion can't....or that miracles can't happen...or that Karl Popper never suggested that a pattern observed a billion times was never guaranteed to happen a billionth and one time
Where are the proponents of the problem of induction when you need them?
-
What, never? What is the rule which says one person in several billion can't....or that miracles can't happen...or that Karl Popper never suggested that a pattern observed a billion times was never guaranteed to happen a billionth and one time
Where are the proponents of the problem of induction when you need them?
No never, imo!
-
No never, imo!
Well hardly ever, i.m.
-
Well hardly ever, i.m.
No ever, besides which, the story of the resurrection doesn't read like anything but a fairy tale.
-
No ever, besides which, the story of the resurrection doesn't read like anything but a fairy tale.
Which fairy tale is that then?
-
No ever, besides which, the story of the resurrection doesn't read like anything but a fairy tale.
Let me give you an objection to this. Without making an argumentum ad populum nothing like Christianity has grown up around a fairy tale. Therefore in someway it IS reading like anything but a fairy tale.
-
Anyway, even if John did write the gospel (almost certainly not btw), the argument remains. Even John could have put the retcon in .
Isn't he the same John in Acts 4:13 described as agrammatoi ... illiterate and idiotai ... common?
-
It has been suggested that the deity of Christ can not be supported with Old Testament scripture.
In Zechariah 12 God is talking:
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn."
The apostle John makes direct reference to this scripture in his account of the crucifixion, clearly indicating that the Lord Jesus is the one who was pierced: "For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken." 37And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced."
So God is the one whom was pierced and Jesus was the one whom was pierced.
I find the reference to mourning for the only son in realisation interesting in the light of this.
In that case, the guys who wrote "John" either didn't read the whole chapter or misunderstood its references.
You decide:
1 The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The saying of the LORD, who stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundation of the earth, and formed the spirit of man within him: 2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of staggering unto all the peoples round about, and upon Judah also shall it fall to be in the siege against Jerusalem. 3 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will make Jerusalem a stone of burden for all the peoples; all that burden themselves with it shall be sore wounded; and all the nations of the earth shall be gathered together against it. 4 In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with bewilderment, and his rider with madness; and I will open Mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5 And the chiefs of Judah shall say in their heart: 'The inhabitants of Jerusalem are my strength through the LORD of hosts their God.' 6 In that day will I make the chiefs of Judah like a pan of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire among sheaves; and they shall devour all the peoples round about, on the right hand and on the left; and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. 7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem be not magnified above Judah. 8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that stumbleth among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as a godlike being, as the angel of the LORD before them. 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. 11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. 12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart: the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; 13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart; 14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
-
Well, not really ekim. The guy who wrote acts was referring to an apostle of Jesus. The guys who wrote John weren't even born when Jesus was doing his stuff!!
-
Well, not really ekim. The guy who wrote acts was referring to an apostle of Jesus. The guys who wrote John weren't even born when Jesus was doing his stuff!!
Neither were you but you are prepared to have a punt at what Jesus said and expect the rest of us to take it seriously even though they've got several centuries on you..
-
Let me give you an objection to this. Without making an argumentum ad populum nothing like Christianity has grown up around a fairy tale.
Christianity did.
-
Well, not really ekim. The guy who wrote acts was referring to an apostle of Jesus. The guys who wrote John weren't even born when Jesus was doing his stuff!!
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he meant. I suggested that John didn't write the gospel and ekim provided evidence that this was the case in that he was illiterate.
-
Neither were you but you are prepared to have a punt at what Jesus said and expect the rest of us to take it seriously even though they've got several centuries on you..
Nahhhhhh.. I'm prepared to have several educated punts that the cunts who wrote "John" weren't even born when jesus was executed.
I need to see your evidence that the writers of "John" were alive in the times of jesus first, so I can laugh at it, then point out where you are wrong..
-
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he meant. I suggested that John didn't write the gospel and ekim provided evidence that this was the case in that he was illiterate.
I'm glad somebody understood. I believe Acts is estimated as being written between 80-100 AD and John between 100-110 AD. The writers could have been contemporaries, who really knows!?
-
Which is my point exactly ekim.
Look at the dates. There is no way on earth the writers of "John" were alive in the 30's..
-
We know that John (or rather, the beloved disciple) wrote his testimony down and that it was used by the authors of "John". See John 21:24
-
We know that John (or rather, the beloved disciple) wrote his testimony down and that it was used by the authors of "John". See John 21:24
And yet he is described elsewhere as illiterate.
-
What?
Hilarious.
Was "Simon son of John" Peter?
"20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?")"
"23Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
Was it Judas?
If it was "John", why did he die?
Judas is still alive and well to this day..
-
... The guys who wrote John weren't even born when Jesus was doing his stuff!!
Hi Ricky,
Thanks for your post, but the text of the 4th gospel is evidence against what you say..
It's Greek vocabulary, grammer and sentence structure is peculiar, unique and consistent throughout chapters 1-20 (excluding 8:1-11). This points to a single author for writing and editing.
It has a disciplined and consistent forensic style throughout which again pointing to a single author - one with a life-time of experience investigating facts in Roman courts.
Dead sea scrolls, archeology, lunar calculations and historical records all confirm the writer's knowledge of culture, geography, politics and details of Jerusalem at the time of Pontus Pilate.
The difficulty with most commemtators, is that the 4th gospel contradicts many details in the other three gospels. However, its forensic discipline points to a writer giving reliable personal eye witness evidence in chapters 19 and 20, and 3rd party eye witness evidence elsewhere.
God bless
-
Ricky has a thing about St John, bless him.
-
I'm glad somebody understood. I believe Acts is estimated as being written between 80-100 AD and John between 100-110 AD. The writers could have been contemporaries, who really knows!?
Hi ekim,
Thanks for your post. Acts may have been written after 70 AD, but no valid argument can date John between 80-110 AD.
The text indicates that Chapters 1-20 (excluding 8:1-11) was written before the death of Peter (64 AD) while chapter 21 appears to have been written after the death of Peter. Chapters 1-20 comprises a forensic series of legal arguments and factual evidence regarding who and what Jesus was, while chapter 21 is an addendum focussing on the status of Peter, not the nature of Jesus.
Verses 5:1-14 describe the pool of Bethesda in the present tense, indicating that these verses were written before the pool was destroyed in 70 AD. Note that 'scholars' believed this pool was fiction until archeology confirmed its detail existence in the 1960s.
Verses 2:18-22 date Jesus's words about the destruction of the Temple to the year 28 AD, with no attempt to capitalise on its actual destruction in 70 AD.
Verses 12:1, 13:1, 19:31 etc date the crucifixion to 14 Nisan (before passover meal), contary to the other three gospels which date it to 15 Nisan (after passover meal). Note that 'scholars' believed the 4th gospel's date was fiction until modern scientific lunar calculations confirmed it was correct and the other three gospels wrong.
A feature of the 4th gospel is its frequent reference to 'the Jews' in the way that an American officer in Afghanistan might refer to 'the Afghans'. That type of reference is absurd for an ethnic Jew and points to the author being a Roman officer resident in Jerusalem before the Zealots drove out the Romans in 66 AD.
I hope you find these points interesting.
God bless
-
Hi Rosindubh,
Interesting points. Thank you.
-
Hi ekim,
Thanks for your post. Acts may have been written after 70 AD, but no valid argument can date John between 80-110 AD.
Apart from the fact that it talks about the Christians being banned from synagogues, which didn't happen till around 90CE.
The text indicates that Chapters 1-20 (excluding 8:1-11) was written before the death of Peter (64 AD)
I think you'll have to explain that reasoning. You are pretty much in a minority with that view.
-
Apart from the fact that it talks about the Christians being banned from synagogues, which didn't happen till around 90CE.
Hi jeremyp,
Thanks for the above post. However, it is a popular but non-viable argument. Historical facts contradict it.
References in 4th gospel to followers of Jesus being put out of synagogues conform with jewish reports about the basic beliefs of Pharisees and the strict discipline they imposed in their synagogues - "introduced at the same time as the rise of the Synagogue", (see jewishencyclopedia.com under Anathema, sub-heading A Measure of Synagogal Discipline).
Jewish encyclopedia estimates this as "contemporaneous with the Maccabean period" (164BC-63BC). So, rules of expulsion from synagogues were well established BEFORE the events described in the 4th gospel.
The word Pharisee "denotes one who separates himself or keeps himself away from persons or things impure". This included "strict observance of Levetical purity, to avoidance of close association with Am Ha-Arez (the ignorant and careless boor)". See jewishencyclopedia.com under Pharisees, 2nd paragraph.
So, association of Jesus and his followers with unwashed multitude, publicans and sinners would have been incompatible with membership of any Pharisaic synagogues in Jerusalem. The Synoptic's description of Jesus's views on the Sabbath and the Pharises' views on Beelzebub would have been even stronger grounds for expulsion.
Note that no gospel ever mentions Jesus or an apostle being inside any synagogue in Jerusalem. The facts contradict J L Martyn's theories.
God bless
-
Which is my point exactly ekim.
Look at the dates. There is no way on earth the writers of "John" were alive in the 30's..
None of the NT existed when Christ walked the earth. The first followers and the good news spread by the telling and hearing of the word. And all the things which happened did so by the power of God through faith in Christ Jesus and the baptism of the Spirit in man.
What you argue about is useless because it isn't the written accounts but the actual reality of the truth and the changes it made in men and the power and miracles that came to pass.]
You miss the boat... You see it is all about Christ.
-
What?
Hilarious.
Was "Simon son of John" Peter?
"20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?")"
"23Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
Was it Judas?
If it was "John", why did he die?
Judas is still alive and well to this day..
Did Jesus refer to his return from the dead or the return after ascending to his Father?
-
I think you'll have to explain that reasoning. You are pretty much in a minority with that view.
Hi jeremyp,
Thanks again for the above post. OK, I will try to show my reasoning.
Text of 4th gospel contains signs of being published in two stages, chapters 1-20 before 65 AD, chapter 21 after, because:-
1. Chapters 1-20 show no knowledge of what happened in 66-70 AD, show no influence from Matthew and Luke and contradict Mark.
2. Chapters 1-20 contains such details on numbers, dates, geography and culture in Jerusalem at the time of Pilate that its author appears to have talked to specific eye witnesses. Scholars used to say such details were fiction but archeology, dead sea scrolls and lunar calculations have proved much is accurate history.
3. Wording of verse 20:30-31:- "now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book but these are written so you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God ....". This is a lawyer summing up his case in Court, claiming sufficient facts have been presented to the Court (his readers) for it to give the verdict he seeks - a final conclusion to the document.
4. Chapter 21 uses similar but different vocabular and grammer to chapters 1-20, suggesting it was written by the same author but some years later.
5. Chapters 1-20 focus on the status of Jesus, but chapter 21 focuses on the status of Peter, and appears to have been triggered by his death, see verse 21:19.
The above are evidence of a very early date for chapters 1-20 and a much later date for chapter 21. I hope you find these points interesting.
God bless